week 5: Sir Perceval de Galles

The English version is of course, far shorter. But looking past that, both version focus on very different things:
In the English version, there is a lot more effort given to the set up, with the red knight getting a far larger role, the whole prologue with Percivals father (also named percival) etc.
Also, there is the inclusion of the red knights mother whom can bring him back to life, which is very strange, as it serves absolutely no purpose, and is dealt with immediately after it is introduced, as a small side note, I find the fact that body creation is included in the English quite strange. While pagans burned their dead often, it is a pretty big no-go in Christianity, so it is strange that its there.
--
In general the French version focuses way more on Percivels character, with the advice from his mother motivating a large amount of his actions that are kinda inexplicable in the English version (Tent ring theft, the sudden religious interest of Percival etc.) - In contrast to that, the English spends far more time comparatively on Arthur and his knights.
--
In summary. The English version feels simplified, less character and more action focused. Percival is presented as a fun gimmick character that meets the whole Camelot crew, and does awesome heroic stuff.
The original is much more of a character piece, exploring Percivals development and growth, with him slowly turning into a proper knight through out the story.
Also, there is a lot of crusade imagery in the English version, which I think might be worth discussing.

For my comparison I’ve chosen the beginning lines, that is lines 69-728. An obvious difference between the two versions, which might have an impact on the characterization of Perceval, is the way his background story is presented. As Pavel has already hinted on, in the French version we learn right away about Perceval’s father who is presented in a precise way and connected to Arthur’s court and the Red Knight.

 

On the other hand, the French version does not mention any of these possible connections and although we learn that Perceval (whose name we do not actually know yet which is important as well) is of noble “knighly” decent (including deceased bothers), the focus is more on his Welsh origins, which actually get ridiculed in a way by different characters in the French version (for instance by the knights he meets in the forest). We therefore get kind of a more geopolitical insight into the situation of the narrative than in the English version, where Percival’s Welsh upbringing does not play much of a role. I would say that in the beginning we get less detail about Perceval’s childhood in the French version compared to the English one, nevertheless, I would argue that we learn about Percival’s background and his upbringing more progressively in the French version, which offers a more complex possibility of character development throughout the narrative. In the English version Perceval seems more of a naïve “wildling child”, whereas in the English version his ignorance of the world is connected more to his background, but he might have a capacity for learning. 

 

Moreover, in my opinion the French text is more inclusive of the reader (for instance by posing rhetorical questions, e.g. line 312) and therefore offers a more dynamic flow and immersion. Furthermore, the worries Percival’s mother has about her son are more incorporated throughout the text in the French version, unlike the English version which more or less puts them forward right at the begging, which to me felt more natural as well. 

 

Another important part which I have found interesting is of course the meeting of the girl from whom Percival steals kisses and her ring. In the French version, this scene is more dramatic and therefore feels more misplaced and immoral, especially in comparison with the mother’s teaching about God and Percival’s dedication to be a good Christian that follows it. 

Generally, in the French version, we really might feel like Percival has good intentions but lacks a true knowledge of God, honour and morality, and therefore some of his actions seem abhorrent and rude. Nevertheless, to me there is prevalent feeling of a possibility that he will improve on his journey, because he does not seem to lack intellect like in the English version, but proper upbringing and a true knowledge of the Christian doctrine and heroic morality, which leads him to misunderstand these concepts and act in the opposite way. In this kind of context, this kind of behaviour inevitably demands redemption. Overall, the French version feels more moralizing (e.g. the king’s speech after Perceval’s arrival to his court) and focused on Christian a heroic morality and its ideals, which I think are topics presenting themselves for further discussion.

For this discussion, I will focus on the lines 834-1504. However, first, I want to briefly comment on Perceval’s initial meeting with knights in the forest. While not within the excerpt that I have chosen to focus on, I wanted to reference this scene simply because in the French version I found it entertaining. Whether Chretien intended it or not, I read Perceval’s instant obsession over the knights to the extent that he completely ignores what they are asking as quite funny. Maybe it’s a quirk of Raffel’s translation but I laughed when in line 208 the knight straight up says “I really don’t care” while Perceval is annoying him with questions.

Turning to the rest of the romance, Perceval’s single-minded focus on becoming a knight dominates his every interaction. For instance, while speaking with the charcoal-burner, Perceval “[pays] no attention/ to anything the fellow said” (859-860). Likewise, his meetings with much more significant characters get the same treatment. When passing the Red Knight who begins to monologue about what he has done, the narrator comments that “He should have sought another/ messenger, for nothing he said/ got through” to Perceval (897-900). This repeats again with King Arthur, whose “story/ couldn’t have meant less to the boy,/ and the queen’s sorrow and shame/ meant exactly as much” (969-971).

While the intention of this humour is questionable, I found it interesting that laughter does play a role in the narrative. Before he leaves the king’s court, Perceval greets an unnamed maiden who laughs in reply, a reaction made significant as it follows a prophecy and makes Perceval “the knight of all knights” (1062). Notably, this brief episode does not exist in the English version.

Overall, the comic elements I have noted are less prominent in the English version (though I personally still found the situations ridiculous). Instead, this version takes a more dramatic angle as it instead grants more focus to Perceval’s father, offering subtext that only Arthur and the reader are aware of with the knowledge that Perceval is his father’s son. Rather than a story about Perceval’s education and eventual destiny of being a “knight of all knights,” it becomes one about him following his father’s legacy.

This difference in Perceval’s final goal I believe demonstrates one of the romance’s core themes – Perceval’s education to be a knight. The English version places more focus on overcoming his arrogance while Chretien’s emphasises a shift from the materialism of trying to gain the Red Knight’s armour to learning the deeper values of chivalry and knighthood.

The later scene between Perceval and the nobleman supports this reading. Though their conversation is partly concerned with the care Perceval gives to his horse, armour and weapons, the nobleman’s final pronouncement compares knighthood to an art. This implies that becoming a knight requires a deeper understanding than knowing how to stab someone as he states “One can learn what one does not know,/ provided one works at learning./ every craft requires/ clear eyes, and effort, and heart” (1464-1467).

I focused on the beginning of the poems and was fascinated by the different depiction of Perceval’s inherent nature. Chrétien with his detailed wording creates an image of rather a child than a young man, he is clueless (although this can be debates as he clearly knew what the knights were asking him and as soon as he got all the answers he wanted, he gave them their immediately). Chrétien also suggests this double-interpretation of his character in the scene where he is praying for God’s forgiveness for thinking of his “angels“ as “devils“ and knights perceive this as fear. His wrongdoings further on, although awful, can be attributed to this childishness and cluelessness. He has not yet constructed in his mind what is good and evil. but Chrétien’s Perceval is not evil, only sheltered. The English Perceval however seems almost inherently malicious, when Chrétien’s is in awe and would not touch the hair on the knight’s head, the English boldly proclaims: “I will kill you all / unless you tell me / who you are,“ and only a couple of lines is described thus: “The child grew angry at this reply and / would have attacked the knight“(page 7). He is aggressive, short-tempered, with no respect to the knights. His further wrongdoings are then harder to be excused as he begins in the eye of the reader in less likable and favourable position.

 
I would really like to highlight the possibilities of interpretation/reading of Chrétien’s Perceval. The long scene of him asking the knights ridiculous questions, can be regarded only as humorous and present in order to explore Perceval’s degree of cluelessness and nativity. But Perceval is in the end quite clever, he stops the knights where he wants them, gets the answers and also helps them to locate what they are searching for. If then he becomes a knight at Arthur’s court (which he knows they are from), he is in a favourable position, as he did them a favour. Although he seems simpleminded, Chrétien’s Perceval suggests that he is much more.

I would say that as with previous works, the English version seems to be more focused on “action “, while Chrétien’s being more introspective. I would also agree that in the english version, the character of the red knight seems more established. For comparison I have chosen the confrontation between Perceval and the Red Knight (670-770). The English version gives more space to Perceval’s inexperience, althought again more action driven, the inexperience is present in combat, such as when he chases down the mare, or when he naively follows his mothers advice in procuring the armor by the medieval equivalent of cooking a sealed can of beans : „'My mother taught me that if I should break my spear, a fire will release the iron. I need a fire,'“ (749-752). Chrétien’s depiction is much shorther and focuses more inwards, on a less physical form of knighthood and its virtues.

During a close comparison of the lines in 69-728 in Burton Raffel’s translation I noticed several differences between that and the English version. There are parody elements in the English version, there is a larger emphasis on the philosophy of heroism in the translation and the English version feels more focused on the action.
The English version is more comedic than the translation acting as a parody of the original. Parody is particularly noticeable regarding the characterization of Percival. Percival in the English version is presented as a wild feral creature, creating moments of comedy due to his ignorance, such as calling all horse’s mares or confusing the knights for God. In the translation, it feels like he is more intelligent, educated and a little more mannerly due to not being raised in the woods. He is not impertinent upon meeting the knights and threatening to kill them like in the English version. In comparison in the translation, the knights are rude towards Percival, calling him a ‘Welshman’ in a derogatory manner. One knight stated all Welshmen behave crazily and cannot help themselves from acting insane. As Percival is not portrayed as a comedic character in the translation he appears more menacing, and dangerous in certain moments. Percival's menace is ostensible when he encounters the girl in the tent. Percival's ignorance is dangerous, and the ensuing scene is uncomfortable and predatory. In contrast in the English version, Percival simply kisses the girl once, swaps her ring for his while she sleeps and leaves. The translation presents him as a flawed character, who will have to make amends and grow as a character until he deserves the title of knight, whereas the English version presents Percival from the outset as a hero, worthy of the title knight but is dim-witted, lacking the refinement of a stereotypical knight. The English version is not focused on aspects of morality, but only on the physical nature of heroics. Physical feats make a hero whereas in the translation there are more philosophical thoughts on what makes a knight. Their morality, religious beliefs etc and the ramifications of committing murder are explored.

Furthermore, I found it engaging how name and place are more incumbent in the English version. All the knights are given names of knights familiar from the Arthurian legend, creating a sense of interconnectedness, as we are already familiar with these characters, we are knowledgeable of their traits. Therefore, when Percival challenges Gawain, there is humour and irony as readers know that this is a fruitless challenge and he will most likely lose. In the translation, we are not given the name of Percival or any character except Arthur in the first 728 lines. Percival is an unnamed character, with little revealed about his backstory until later when he discusses it with his mother. This creates more intrigue and captivates readers. In juxtaposition we learn everything about Percival’s backstory from the outset of the English version, how his father died in a detailed prologue and his true lineage. There is dramatic irony in the English version as readers are aware of this information before Percival is made privy. The dramatic irony further enhances the comedic elements of the story and further creates the notion of Percival as ignorant. In the English version revenge and fate as central themes from the outset. From the beginning of the English version, readers are aware that Percival will have to fight the Red Knight and avenge his Father. In the translation we do not know what will happen to Percival when he ensues on his adventure, the reader is in the dark similar to the main character.

For me, this once again comes down to the balance between showing vs telling. The English version leans more into the story's comedic aspects and, as others have already stated, action, whereas Chretién's version focuses on conveying the story in full, which therefore naturally includes more well-rounded characters who reveal their traits through their actions (such as Perceval asking the knight so many questions, this successfully establishes his characters without any further explanation necessary). This is where I also find the most significant difference in terms of modes of narration – the French version does not need to amplify and draw attention to the individual (and mostly Perceval's, of course) characteristics as opposed to the English one with its numerous narratorial intrusions. In this case, the English version appears to me as too reductive (as opposed to Ywain and Gawain).

I think a major difference lies in how the two texts characterise Percival's actions in the theft of the kiss and the ring. Chretien seems to paint this scene as a warning about the strict codes of chivalry he himself was trying to create and legitimise: 'the romance, at least in its greatest period in France, creates a code and
expresses values not generally current in society' (Finlayson). Percival receives instruction on how to behave honourably from his mother: 'if you court a woman/ Be careful you don't harass her:/ Do nothing that might displease her [...] if she allows you a kiss/ Don't ask for anything more [...] if there's a ring on her finger [...]
And for the sake of love she gives you (it) [...] wear whatever she gives you/ It's proper to accept a ring' (Raffel). Here Percival has a clear code to follow, and as a knight (to be), we would expect him to follow it. Why, then, does he immediately warp and disregard these instructions upon meeting a defenceless woman? He harasses the lady in the tent, obviously displeasing her. She does not allow him a kiss, he takes it, and the same with the ring. It is not given, it is forcibly removed. However, Percival sees no flaw in this logic. To him, or so we are supposed to believe, he is obeying his mother: 'I'll kiss you"/ Said the boy, "no matter what/ Just as my mother taught me" (Raffel). He warps his chivalric code to justify his own ironic transgressions against it. He is chivalric in word alone, a danger to women who cannot or will not recognise himself as such. To Chretien this must have been a great irony, the poet who took 'delight in problems of conduct, especially the problem for the knight-lover of reconciling his chivalric obligations with the imperative of Love' (Pearsall). For Percival this reconciliation comes in merely failing to recognise that his actions trangress his chivalric obligations. Is he naive or malicious? Here we see the element of warning from Chretien; here is a great knight who acts as a villain and hides behind his knightly oaths. Chivalry is only chivalry if it is backed up by the "correct" thoughts and actions.

In stark contrast to this stands the English version. As is the constant difference between the two texts, the English version has no such philosphising, hidden warnings, etc. Percival merely waltzes in to a castle, kisses a woman whether she wants it or not, steals her ring and leaves. The narrator gives no indication if this is moral or not, or even how anybody involved felt about the whole thing. It just happens, and then the next event happens. Percival in this version is not a representative of the dangers of warped codes or corrupted chivalry, he is just the impetus which makes the plot progress.